Document fee hurts those it's meant to help

I am writing to oppose Senate Bill 391, which would add $75 to the cost of recording certain documents and use the money to help fund low income housing assistance in the state.

Comment

By Kenneth Blakemore

recordnet.com

By Kenneth Blakemore

Posted Jun. 9, 2013 at 12:01 AM

By Kenneth Blakemore

Posted Jun. 9, 2013 at 12:01 AM

» Social News

I am writing to oppose Senate Bill 391, which would add $75 to the cost of recording certain documents and use the money to help fund low income housing assistance in the state.

I appreciate and support the desire to help provide low-income housing as well as jobs for California. This bill though is the wrong way to accomplish that goal.

The recorder-county clerk serves as custodian of public records and documents. Congress and legislatures designed a system of recording documents into a single public repository to provide a way to track and prove the ownership of property.

The public can research the records to determine who has the legal rights to such property. However, documents may be valid and legally binding even if they are not recorded.

Therefore someone discouraged by the extra costs may decide not to record a document, consequently not providing constructive notice to subsequent purchasers, lenders or the public that a change in ownership has taken place.

I appreciate and support the desire to help provide low-income housing and jobs. However, this bill is the wrong way to help accomplish that goal. It would disproportionately affect those who can afford it the least - some of the very people it is supposed to assist.

For example, as a result of this bill someone with a home loan and a line of credit refinancing to achieve a lower monthly payment would need to record, at a minimum, a Deed of Trust, Subordination, Substitution of Trustee and Reconveyance. SB391 would impose an additional $75 tax on every one of these recorded documents. In this scenario, they would have to pay an additional $300 in recording fees.

It would also increase the cost for homeowners who are already in default by as much as $375. This bill also would increase the costs of affidavits of death, divorce proceedings and many public filings business owners need to make.

Supporters claim "SB391 models a permanent housing tool well-tested in other states." Only eight other states have implemented such a fee and most of them exclude affidavits of death, liens, name changes, mining claims etc. and the average fee going to affordable housing is less than $15. I contend that it is quite a stretch to call this a comparable, well-tested tool.

Supporters also proclaim wide agreement for this "fee." I have personally addressed the Senate Housing and Transportation Committee on behalf of the County Recorder's Association in opposition to the bill and I got a taste of that support. Supporters were lined up out the door while only four of us spoke against it.

I really believe that many of those supporters would not if they thought it through. I feel The Record's June 2 editorial, "Real estate fee is tax in disguise," did a very good job bringing attention to the subject.

It's true the need exists and there aren't many avenues to attract the necessary funds. However, I feel that attaching this "fee" onto the recording of documents is definitely not a good way to go about it.

Kenneth Blakemore has been the assessor-recorder-county clerk of San Joaquin County since 2009. He started working in the Stanislaus County Assessor's Office in 1980, and has been with San Joaquin County since 1987.